DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 5509-98
8 July 1999
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
late brother's naval record pursuant to the provisions of title
10 of the United States Code section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 7 July 1999. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your late brother's naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that your brother enlisted in the Naval Reserve
on 1 August 1942 at age 17. Prior to the offenses for which he
received the bad conduct discharge, he received three nonjudicial
punishments and was convicted by a deck court and a general
court-martial. His offenses were five periods of unauthorized
absence totaling about 26 days. The sentence of the general
court-martial included a bad conduct discharge, but it was
suspended for a probationary period.
A second general court-martial convened on 10 November 1944 and
convicted him of an unauthorized absence of about one day and
missing ship's movement. The sentence of the court included a
reduction to apprentice seaman, forfeiture of all pay and
allowances, confinement at hard labor for 12 months and a bad
conduct discharge. The discharge was again suspended for a
probationary period of six months and he was restored to duty on
14 February 1945. Subsequently, he was an unauthorized absentee
from 19 February to 26 February 1945 and the suspended discharge
was ordered executed. The bad conduct discharge was issued on 27
November 1945.
In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all
potentially mitigating factors, such as his youth, the character
references you submitted and your contention that alcohol abuse
led to his misconduct. The Board found that these factors and
contentions were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of
his discharge given the frequency of his wartime misconduct and
especially his violation of probation. The Board concluded that
the discharge was proper as issued and no change is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9800999
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Since you were only 16 years old, you requested discharge from the Naval Reserve.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 00999-98
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Apparently, no action was taken on your request for discharge because of the unauthorized absence and because even with the new date of birth, you would have been 17 years old on 11 July 1943. The Board found that these factors and contentions were not sufficient to warrant...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807447
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 June 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the case summary prepared in connection with the Board's review of your late father case in 1950 and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02299-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July 2003. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. On 11 January and 8 July 1944 you were convicted by a deck court and received nonjudicial punishment for two periods of unauthorized absence totaling...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02498-99
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband's naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. At this time the BCD was ordered executed. The Board, in its review of your late husband's entire record and your application, carefully considered all mitigating factors, such as his youth and immaturity.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 09_11_22 CDT 2000
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your late husband’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. received the BCD. He was sentenced to forfeitures totalling $234 and a About a month later, on 25 June 1945, he received CM On 23 October 1945 he At this The Board also considered your The Board, in its review of your late husband’s entire record and your application,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03588-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2005. The Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of his discharge given his extensive disciplinary record and especially the final lengthy period of unauthorized absence. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06531-99
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The bad conduct discharge was issued on 20 May 1960. forfeiture of all pay and allowances, The court sentence you to Tn its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth, limited education, low score on the aptitude test and your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01398-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 July 1999. The Board concluded that the foregoing factors and contentions were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given your record of an NJP, conviction by a summary court-martial and the conviction by general court-martial of an AWOL of more than six months during wartime. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-107
The date led up to approxi- mately 4 days prior to his discharge.” She stated that her mother told her that her father had been “pushed out of the military due to the fact that WWII was over and they were getting rid of men any way they could.” She further stated that as a former member of the Coast Guard herself, she wants “to be able to go to my father’s grave and put a flag upon it with pride to know that I was able to overturn this for him.” APPLICABLE LAW Article 459 of the Personnel...